I really don't believe the "players were screwed" in the last contract. If you do not recall, the players were making a killing and a vast majority of people were on the owners side in that lockout. True, they took a rollback, but they also had 57% of the revenue in the length of the last CBA. In that time, the players salaries on average are up from 1.5 million to 2.5 million before the start of the 2011-2012 season. Today, it is even higher I am sure.

In the meantime, many people want to look at the Forbes report and say that it is bunk. The league made $110 million last year. That is all fine and dandy, but you if you split 30 teams between $110 million, that $3.66 million per franchise. If those are pure profits, the owners who have invested in a $250 million dollar investment would be making 1.5% on their investment. I know that the owners are viewed as billionaires and they can "lose some money", but if you had the opportunity to make 1.5% on your investment for a year, would you be happy about it?

IMHO, the players can and should take a pay cut of some kind, but every contract should be honored. There is more than enough for both sides in this negotiation.

The NHL wasn't going to be able to survive in an open market like that paying players 10 million annually. Hell, we are already seeing that now.

Sounds like you have a problem with Billionaires making money. Just keep in mind that these billionaires are the ones with a true investment in the game. They supply everything to the players. I believe that these investors should at least have the right to try to make a profit on their investment. A 1.5% profit is not fair in the least bit.

Once again I will say that if the players were making 43% and they went on strike, many of the NHLPA fans would still be behind the players because they were not getting a fair deal. So it really is a lose/lose situation.

I have a problem with the following things:

1. Billionaires claiming to lose while making money

Let's face it the players are living a life most of us - I guess - can't even dream off, but they are sacrificing a lot for it (health, leisure-time, relationship and extremely) and then on theo ther side there are the owners. Guys, who are living a life even the players can't dream off but they are in no way sacrificing as much as the players do. These guys are making money without doing everything, they own big succesful companies with tons of employees and willingly decided to own an NHL club would be a good decision.

So for so good......but don't cry poor if you are making tons of money AND are giving out contracts you magically can't afford now. Losing 10 m § for those guys is like us losing 100 $ it sucks but nothing to worry about. At the end of the day all owners made out like bandits whenever they've decided to sell their NHL club and even the sooooooooooooo poor Yotes owner made around 50 m § ROI.

2. Refusing to use options

There are so many options outthere, but yet the midget and his BOG aren't interested in using them guess what? Though luck.

Relocate or fold the failed franchises...dont want to do that? Well find other ways to make them viable again.Get rid off the cap floor...don't want to do that? Though luck again, if some teams can't spend more than X amount of § don't force them and don't force others to spend less you fidel undersized bettman.Introduce a luxury tax...don't want to do that? f*** you NHL 3 options and all are good ones if you don't want to accept them it is your own damn fault.

Mr. I has to spend millions of his hard earned money in order to help some failed teams out, so they can sign guys like Weber forever and beat us in 5 games oh yes, all hail the holy parity.

btw. reading some of the comments on other internetsites made me realize how stupid and how big the owners focus group has been, some of these pro owner guys don't even have real arguements instead they are just insulting players and probably are wearing their jerseys, once the season is back next year.

To me this should have been the easiest CBA negotiation ever but the midget and the owners started it off in a complete wrong way, they weren't reasonable they wanted the moon but the PA presented them a very good offer.

Also Bettman and Daily are acting like schoolkids reading 3 proposals in 10 minutes? That's just unbelievable at least take a day to think off it and if these two clowns still think the players are being paid too much - they should reduce their own salary by around 50 % - and on top of that play the game when a guy like MacIntyre, Parros or Scott is coming at full speed checking them through the roof and then tell me again players are making to much money...

The league made $126.5M in 2010-11. About 4% of revenue. We don't know what the profit was last year, since Forbes doesn't have those numbers yet. (However, the numbers we do know, and growth trends for those we don't know, suggest it's very possible the league may have turned record profits last year.)

$126.5 million divided by 30 teams is a little over 4 million per team. $250 million dollar average asset = 1.6% per owner.

Secondly, the average purchase price for an NHL team was $139M. Average ownership length is 14 years. Average team value as of last November is $240M, for an appreciation average of $101M. Average profit for the first 6 years of the prior CBA, plus the last year of the CBA before that was $24.5M. Even if we assume profits for last year of only $110M, it brings that to $28.2. Profits or losses from '98-99 through '02-03 aren't available, but considering the league could have, but didn't (in fact, the league agreed to extend that deal 4 years beyond it's original end), open negotiations for a new CBA before each of those years it's hard to imagine any losses were significant. We'll just say the league broke even over that span.

So in total profits, income plus appreciation, the average owner has seen pretty close to (and possibly more than) a 100% return on investment minus whatever was lost in '04-05. Average annual ROI is probably at least 6%, and that's even with losing an entire season. Average annual return on revenue over the life of the last CBA is likely around 5%. And that was with a players' share of 54-57%. All the players' proposals have been less than that.

You are looking at the profits as a "league wide" event. When you split the profits by all teams, the return on investment is much less.

Also, the thing to consider is these teams are not easily moved. The demand for a NHL franchise is very low. This is why it took 3 years to sell the Blues and Stars. The main reason why is the cost to run the franchise and the profits at the end. So while you do have a valid point on the values of the teams and the average owning length, the simple fact of the matter is that these teams are only making about 1.5% profit on average. For most business owners, 1.5% is really a drop in the bucket. One mistake can mean the difference between profitable and losing money.

So you can continue to make up "facts", act like owners can't make any money, etc...but saying it doesn't make it true. Even at 57%, the league as a whole does decent. At 53-54%, the league as a whole would be doing better than the vast majority of industries in the US. The problem in the league is not player salaries, nor player contract rights. The problem is the revenue disparity. That is an issue the owners need to address among themselves. The players have offered to slow (almost stagnate) their salary growth for a time to help. The owners should be saying 'thank you'.

In regards to the bolded section, it simply isn't possible to take an immediate pay cut and honor every contract at the same time. They can take a relative cut in the future, and they have already offered to do so. But the owners are demanding both an immediate cut, and a larger relative cut in the future. Neither is justified by the numbers.

And here's something for the owners to think about, if they're already worried about their public image: Imagine how much worse it will be if we're still locked out in a month, and the Forbes numbers do come out showing record profits.

On the contrary, that is possible. There are many alternatives such as having all money that is paid out to the players on inflated contracts to not count against the cap to a certain percentage. Point is that there are options.

Let's face it the players are living a life most of us - I guess - can't even dream off, but they are sacrificing a lot for it (health, leisure-time, relationship and extremely) and then on theo ther side there are the owners. Guys, who are living a life even the players can't dream off but they are in no way sacrificing as much as the players do. These guys are making money without doing everything, they own big succesful companies with tons of employees and willingly decided to own an NHL club would be a good decision.

So for so good......but don't cry poor if you are making tons of money AND are giving out contracts you magically can't afford now. Losing 10 m &sect; for those guys is like us losing 100 $ it sucks but nothing to worry about. At the end of the day all owners made out like bandits whenever they've decided to sell their NHL club and even the sooooooooooooo poor Yotes owner made around 50 m &sect; ROI.

2. Refusing to use options

There are so many options outthere, but yet the midget and his BOG aren't interested in using them guess what? Though luck.

Relocate or fold the failed franchises...dont want to do that? Well find other ways to make them viable again.Get rid off the cap floor...don't want to do that? Though luck again, if some teams can't spend more than X amount of &sect; don't force them and don't force others to spend less you fidel undersized bettman.Introduce a luxury tax...don't want to do that? f*** you NHL 3 options and all are good ones if you don't want to accept them it is your own damn fault.

First, I agree with you. The contracts the owners signed should be honored. At the same time, I think there should be contract limits on time. Give the players a 2 year entry level deal maximum and then a second contract of 5 years maximum and then they get to be free agents. That would mean breakout young stars today would be unrestricted free agents at 26 and in the prime of their careers.

As for the owners crying poor, they are not doing that. The businesses they run do deserve to attempt to make money. When you are running at $250 million dollar business, and you make 1.5% profit on it, your margin of error is slim. I think the owners are entitled to a little more of the pie.

Secondly, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Relocated those failing franchises. The owners should be more flexible.

Well, If we are calculating return on investment we should not forget that franchises tend to rise in value.

Current Minnesota Wild owner (Craig Leipold) bought Predators for 80M and sold them for 193M. He claims to have had 70M in operating losses, which still leaves him 43M in the black.

Good point. The franchises do go up, but so do the salaries of the players as well. So while he bought the preds for $80 million, the cost of the salaries and players were much cheaper. When he sold them, the costs for players were higher. So the owners would make more in 2-3 years when the team sells, but in the meantime, they are still only making a small percent and they are the ones taking all the risk.

$126.5 million divided by 30 teams is a little over 4 million per team. $250 million dollar average asset = 1.6% per owner.

You are looking at the profits as a "league wide" event. When you split the profits by all teams, the return on investment is much less.

Also, the thing to consider is these teams are not easily moved. The demand for a NHL franchise is very low. This is why it took 3 years to sell the Blues and Stars. The main reason why is the cost to run the franchise and the profits at the end. So while you do have a valid point on the values of the teams and the average owning length, the simple fact of the matter is that these teams are only making about 1.5% profit on average. For most business owners, 1.5% is really a drop in the bucket. One mistake can mean the difference between profitable and losing money.

On the contrary, that is possible. There are many alternatives such as having all money that is paid out to the players on inflated contracts to not count against the cap to a certain percentage. Point is that there are options.

$250M is still a made up number. Even if it wasn't, it's irrelevant. Owners don't buy their teams every year.

The profit numbers I gave were per team. They're the numbers for what the average team has made in profit over the time period given.

The "simple fact of the matter" is that what you call a "fact" is simply not true and profit relative to asset value doesn't matter. Profit, as in the amount of revenue left over after all expenses are paid, has averaged about 5% per year over the term of the last CBA. No matter how much you want to deny it, or make up numbers that make your argument sound better, ~5% is the truth. We have that data. Anyone can look at it. If you want to look at the return on investment, then you have to look at the actual amount invested, factor in appreciation, and all yearly profits instead of just one year. Those are the numbers I gave (where available). Again, anyone can look at them on Forbes.

Demand for franchises may be low, but that's mostly because the teams being sold are the teams that aren't doing well, and usually the league wants a buyer that will keep the team in the same location. But even with that low demand, half the teams in the NHL have been sold in the last 10 years, and 26 have been sold (or expansion rights purchased) in the last 20. Some teams have been sold (or at least partial ownership sold) more than once in that time. All of that under CBAs that were less 'owner-friendly' than anything the PA is proposing now. Maybe it's not such a horrible business after all.

And no, it isn't possible. At least not unless revenues grow by ~15% or so. You may think your idea is clever, and maybe you really believe that somehow it magically makes two unequal values equal, but it doesn't. It's basically just what the PA proposed, and the owners rejected. You're just saying that some of the money paid doesn't 'count', as if that means the owners don't really pay it, but magically the players still get it. Again, saying something doesn't make it true. You can't pay all contracts in full, while also paying less than the amount of all contracts.

It does not make the point about honoring previous contracts moot. It just means that players have to make sure that the new CBA contains are clause that existing contracts are to be paid in full (or whatever they are looking for). So it remains a stumbling block regardless of what that writer is saying.

Well since we already surpassed the point that a 82-game regaular season is possible, they won't see their full salary whatsoever. It is now in damage control mode. That unless the players think a 82-game schedule is still possible...or the players think they will get a 82-game salary with a 60/70-game schedule...

The owners made this mess by irresponsibly spending money on contracts leading up to this most recent CBA negotiations. Then, Uncle Gary says that operating costs are overdrawn and he has the unmitigated gall to suggest that reeling in of over-the-top contracts is the culprit. If that be the case, he needs to sit down with the owners and explain this to them. He wouldn't dare do that because they make sure that he keeps his job. Remember; 30-0.
It's too bad that an email memo hasn't been found from Uncle Gary to the owners, suggesting that it is in their best interest to ease up on contract spending, as it would put him in a bad light regarding his long thought out plan to "negotiate'.
IF that memo was made and was found, there may be a pretty good case for collusion.

Well since we already surpassed the point that a 82-game regaular season is possible, they won't see their full salary whatsoever. It is now in damage control mode. That unless the players think a 82-game schedule is still possible...or the players think they will get a 82-game salary with a 60/70-game schedule...

Otherwise I really really don't know what the player's end game is...

It's always been damage control.

I'm sure it's still possible to get an 82-game season, they just might need to end the season later which probably isn't easy. Regardless, fighting for the full value of their contracts, pro-rated or not, is just loss prevention. They've just gone from trying not to lose any to trying not to lose more.

I'm sure it's still possible to get an 82-game season, they just might need to end the season later which probably isn't easy. Regardless, fighting for the full value of their contracts, pro-rated or not, is just loss prevention. They've just gone from trying not to lose any to trying not to lose more.

And what strategy are they going to use to prevent more loss to their contract?

Well it actually doesn't matter all that much since the total salaries lost is already more than their own last proposal as opposed to the owners one.

And what strategy are they going to use to prevent more loss to their contract?

Well it actually doesn't matter all that much since the total salaries lost is already more than their own last proposal as opposed to the owners one.

They are standing up for something way bigger and greater than money, ideals and against bullying by an undersized antihockey guy and a bunch of owners, who can't control themselves so they need a babysitter called ridiculous CBA.

Players this time are well prepared and informed so it could be an even longer lockout and guess what? All the failed franchises are the ones going to get hurt the most by it.

It's even more than laughable if the NHL honestly believes that the WC has any leverage:

Two of 30 teams are taking part the players are not getting any extra money from participating or the HBO 24/7 documentation so *lol*

Owners created this by themselves so they either find ways to fix it in a fair way, or the lockout will be even longer, though luck and I am fine with it.

$250M is still a made up number. Even if it wasn't, it's irrelevant. Owners don't buy their teams every year.

The profit numbers I gave were per team. They're the numbers for what the average team has made in profit over the time period given.

The "simple fact of the matter" is that what you call a "fact" is simply not true and profit relative to asset value doesn't matter. Profit, as in the amount of revenue left over after all expenses are paid, has averaged about 5% per year over the term of the last CBA. No matter how much you want to deny it, or make up numbers that make your argument sound better, ~5% is the truth. We have that data. Anyone can look at it. If you want to look at the return on investment, then you have to look at the actual amount invested, factor in appreciation, and all yearly profits instead of just one year. Those are the numbers I gave (where available). Again, anyone can look at them on Forbes.

Demand for franchises may be low, but that's mostly because the teams being sold are the teams that aren't doing well, and usually the league wants a buyer that will keep the team in the same location. But even with that low demand, half the teams in the NHL have been sold in the last 10 years, and 26 have been sold (or expansion rights purchased) in the last 20. Some teams have been sold (or at least partial ownership sold) more than once in that time. All of that under CBAs that were less 'owner-friendly' than anything the PA is proposing now. Maybe it's not such a horrible business after all.

And no, it isn't possible. At least not unless revenues grow by ~15% or so. You may think your idea is clever, and maybe you really believe that somehow it magically makes two unequal values equal, but it doesn't. It's basically just what the PA proposed, and the owners rejected. You're just saying that some of the money paid doesn't 'count', as if that means the owners don't really pay it, but magically the players still get it. Again, saying something doesn't make it true. You can't pay all contracts in full, while also paying less than the amount of all contracts.

$250 million is the average value of a NHL franchise. Hell, last year it was $240 million.

It isn't some made up number. Once again, you fail to grasp the concept of profit sharing. The league as a whole made just like you said, but that profit is split between all teams. My point is that if each team is only making about 1.5% profit on the price of their actual asset, its a very small amount of profit compared to the price of their franchise. No one should be surprised that the owners are locking the players out. If the players were only making 43%, I wouldn't have been surprised if they went on strike.

Oh, and paying out the players contracts outside the cap would solve that problem. You can have a straight 50/50 split on all future earnings, while at the same time the owners can pay out the contracts out of their pockets so they don't count against the cap. Just because you reduce the cap from 57 to 50 doesn't mean the players have to take a pay cut on what they are earning today. The owners just shell out the money outside the 7% to all players who are being paid on contracts today. It really is a simple concept to understand. When the automotive manufacturers cut salaries of auto workers, they didn't cut existing salaries. All new workers were getting hired at a lower rate. Existing workers kept their money.

They are standing up for something way bigger and greater than money, ideals and against bullying by an undersized antihockey guy and a bunch of owners, who can't control themselves so they need a babysitter called ridiculous CBA.

Players this time are well prepared and informed so it could be an even longer lockout and guess what? All the failed franchises are the ones going to get hurt the most by it.

It's even more than laughable if the NHL honestly believes that the WC has any leverage:

Two of 30 teams are taking part the players are not getting any extra money from participating or the HBO 24/7 documentation so *lol*

Owners created this by themselves so they either find ways to fix it in a fair way, or the lockout will be even longer, though luck and I am fine with it.

Lol @ players having ideals. If they really would stand up they should stay in na and not flee to europe.

And what strategy are they going to use to prevent more loss to their contract?

Well it actually doesn't matter all that much since the total salaries lost is already more than their own last proposal as opposed to the owners one.

Doesn't matter how much they've lost. Agreeing to an owner proposal isn't going to send them back in time. At any given time, agreeing to the owner proposal means less money than the owners agreeing to theirs. I don't know that there's any 'strategy' to use. More of a "hope the owners' losses encourage them to change their minds first". It may be hopeless, and too bad for them if it is, but I don't fault them for trying.

BTW, depending on growth, they'd need to lose around 20 games or so. (And that's not counting whatever money they're making in other leagues.) Given the NHL's "82 games if we start Nov. 2nd", they'd need to "win" by the first week of December or earlier, as opposed to what they'd get if they agreed today. But that date keeps moving back the longer they wait, since they will no longer be able to "agree today".

Doesn't matter how much they've lost. Agreeing to an owner proposal isn't going to send them back in time. At any given time, agreeing to the owner proposal means less money than the owners agreeing to theirs. I don't know that there's any 'strategy' to use. More of a "hope the owners' losses encourage them to change their minds first". It may be hopeless, and too bad for them if it is, but I don't fault them for trying.

BTW, depending on growth, they'd need to lose around 20 games or so. (And that's not counting whatever money they're making in other leagues.) Given the NHL's "82 games if we start Nov. 2nd", they'd need to "win" by the first week of December or earlier, as opposed to what they'd get if they agreed today. But that date keeps moving back the longer they wait, since they will no longer be able to "agree today".

Are you serious? Ofcourse I don't mean the difference between both proposals at this moment, that would push the date endlessly. You can hold out for the next five years and still have the same argument.

I ment that the players did not want to give up any cent of their contract but as per today they essentialy gave up 25% of their salary.

And if I were a player and the PA said to me that they did not have a solid strategy for the current situation I would be furious.

It isn't some made up number. Once again, you fail to grasp the concept of profit sharing. The league as a whole made just like you said, but that profit is split between all teams. My point is that if each team is only making about 1.5% profit on the price of their actual asset, its a very small amount of profit compared to the price of their franchise. No one should be surprised that the owners are locking the players out. If the players were only making 43%, I wouldn't have been surprised if they went on strike.

Oh, and paying out the players contracts outside the cap would solve that problem. You can have a straight 50/50 split on all future earnings, while at the same time the owners can pay out the contracts out of their pockets so they don't count against the cap. Just because you reduce the cap from 57 to 50 doesn't mean the players have to take a pay cut on what they are earning today. The owners just shell out the money outside the 7% to all players who are being paid on contracts today. It really is a simple concept to understand. When the automotive manufacturers cut salaries of auto workers, they didn't cut existing salaries. All new workers were getting hired at a lower rate. Existing workers kept their money.

No, you're wrong.

$250M is your estimate. Which just means it's a made up number that you think is fairly close whatever the real number is. However, it's irrelevant. The average price actually paid for an NHL team is $139M. Even that is irrelevant, since again owners don't buy their teams every year, and no one looks to buy an NHL team for a 1 year profit.

And again, the numbers I gave are not "league as a whole", it is the average per team.

Total league-wide for term of prior CBA: ~$942MAverage per team: ~$31.4MTotal league-wide revenues for term: $19.591BAverage per team: $653M

Average profit margin: 31.4/653 = ~4.8%

And paying outside the cap (players' share, more accurately) would solve the problem from the player's perspective (which is why they proposed it), but not the owners. Whether the owners are paying out of pocket or out of revenues before they go into their pocket means nothing. No matter how you try to phrase it, no matter what accounting chicanery you employ, you can't escape the simple mathematical fact that 50% + any amount of money needed to make up the shortfall = >50%. There is no way to get around it (barring requisite revenue growth of course). Owners either pay more than 50%, or players get less than they're owed next year. If players get less, it's either a straight pay cut, or that money is deferred. If deferred, then in later years owners again need to pay more than 50%, or future players take a larger relative pay cut (below 50%). It simply doesn't matter what you do. If existing contracts are honored, then in some year or another either owners need to pay more than 50%, or players need to earn less than 50%.

Are you serious? Ofcourse I don't mean the difference between both proposals at this moment, that would push the date endlessly. You can hold out for the next five years and still have the same argument.

I ment that the players did not want to give up any cent of their contract but as per today they essentialy gave up 25% of their salary.

And if I were a player and the PA said to me that they did not have a solid strategy for the current situation I would be furious.

Quite serious. It doesn't matter what the players "did not want", because they can't change what's already happened. Whatever is lost (which is not 25%, cancelled games can be rescheduled, we're only three days removed from the date we would have had a full season) is lost regardless. Everything moves forward, but the basic equation stays the same: What can we get now .vs what do we believe we can get next week. By the time you get to next week to see if you're right, the 'what can we get now' side has changed.

So long as the players believe they can get more in the future, and the 'more' is more than what they'll lose by giving in at the time, they won't give in. The longer it goes on, the less likely they are to believe they can win in the future. But the same is true on the owner's side. It's more a matter of confidence than a true logical evaluation, since you can't ever truly know what the other side will do in the future.

What "strategy" do you think either side can really have? Covert infiltration? Flanking maneuver? Rubinstein Counter-gambit? Should the PA have an R&D department working on mind control and robot doppelgangers? I'm over-simplifying to say "hope", but all either side can do is make offers they think are fair and try to present them as compellingly as possible. In the end it basically amounts to just hoping the other side will agree with you.